Skip to main content

About your Search

20130204
20130212
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
and didn't because he was so, quote, strong on foreign policy. >> you say, quote. that's why i voted for him. i trusted george bush to make hard, tough decisions that i thought john kerry might waver on. >> thank you. which is why i don't think obama will have any problem with this. >> i think it helps him. >> he'll look like a strong, and just like he did a year ago, just like when he killed bin laden, he looks incredibly strong on foreign policy. and this will not provide a weak spot for him in the long run. >> mika, really quickly, i agree with you there. i don't think there's going to be a political fallout from it. >> yeah. >> i think one of the things that disturbs me so much is the fact that americans are not any more concerned about other americans being able to be targeted and killed without any due process. and i'll say it again because i can hear people saying, well, why didn't you say that about george w. bush? i did. i did on padilla. i did when there were americans whose constitutional rights were being eviscerated by what was going on during the bush era. i spoke out t
order, and morality. it should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy." the church committee report came out, said that. gerald ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. the select committees on intelligence were formed in the house and the senate to exert oversight over the cia. since the armed services committees who had been supposedly overseeing them had fallen down on the job, actually, they'd never seen all that interested in that part of the job in the first place. and that is how we got to a place where these senators today could question this cia director nominee under the expectation that he has to answer to them. and they need to be apprised of what the cia is doing every step of the way. and targeted killing by the cia is not just something they're allowed to do quietly on their own or in private with the white house without at least having to explain. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. and ensuring that the congress has the documents and information it needs to conduct robust oversight is centra
to president obama's foreign policy in as far as being able to take out terrorist where is he doesn't have to send u.s. troops and john brennan was an architect of that strategy. of course, controversial because there are innocent civilians who can get caught up in that as "the new york times" written about earlier this week, as well. that's obviously where some of this is coming from but the question americans face is would you rather have american troops and boots on the ground in yemen and pakistan or the unmanned drones taking on this responsibility? >> thank you very much. i appreciate you changing conversations in the middle of everything. we'll have plenty of time i'm sure to talk about chuck hagel. meantime, let's take the audience to the senate hearing and senator dianne feinstein. >> because of the added importance of having steady leadership at an organization that conducts most of its business outside of the public arena. intelligence is critical to the successful draw down in afghanistan, to the brutal war going on within's syria's borders, across north africa where the attack
to basically dictate food and foreign policy. they speak with one voice in the side with the pesticide regulation should be, what nutrition labeling is, every aspect of our food system and partnered with the biotech industry which is also so powerful that it can basically by public policy. there was a report last year on the biotech industry. it turns out there are 100 biotech companies lobbying full time. of those, they have hired 13 former members of congress and 300 former staffers of the white house and congress. the biotechnology industry has a lot of clouds. and wal-mart's is partnering up in some ways. one of the ways was recently with engineering "genetically engineered sweet corn. ..
hope you all look at the article written january 17 in "foreign policy" magazine about aegis and the problems that have surfaced about them. now i have talked to patrick kennedy about this and his staff has come over and briefed my staff that they believe aegis is doing just fine. . >> i won't go into the i.g. report on the background checks. but the people that are at kabul now, it is $100 million a year we are paying them. i can't believe we can't use the marines in these situations. someone has got to do a cost benefit analysis. can you imagine the amount of money we have spent fooling around with these contractors that weren't getting the job done? can you imagine the time we have spent on this and the money that has been spent? i would like for you, general, to talk about the cost benefit of putting marines in our embassies and why in the world this is hard for us to get our arms around and where is the analysis that shows us we are saving any money. >> just to react briefly to what would be necessarily a much longer conversation. the marines are not -- that's not their
. this is the greatest threat because we failed to pass the legislation ourselves. we can't stop at foreign policies where we can divert, identify an attack. i want to get of to the job of the c.i.a. i'm going to be blunt and that is no surprise to you, sir. i've been with the committee for more than 10 years. with the exception of mr. panetta i feel like i've been jerked around by every c.i.a. director. i had to pull information out, and i feel like i've been misdirected. they had to tell us that we had weapons of mass destruction in iraq. we know the problems we've had before and the chair has spoken about it all the way. quite frankly those questions were evaded, distorted, etc. my question to you is, knowing your background, knowing your education, can i have your word that you're going to be very forthcoming with this committee to speak truth to power, to speak truth about power?and even when it is uncomfortable? >> truthfulness was a value that was put into me in my home in new jersey. it still is to this day. honesty is the best policy. none of us are perfect human beings. i will say i will b
and advise the senior most policy makers about government about a foreign, political, and economic developments, or an operations officer, whose job it is to find and obtain those elusive secrets to provide advance warning and strategic surprise, impending violence, cyber attacks and a persistent threats such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation, or a technical expert, who finds nuggets of intelligence in tremendous volumes of data, provides secure data collection and systems and encountered the latest threats to our nation, or a support officer whose responsibility is to provide analysis and when directed by the president, conducting covert action and carried out with the provision speed, skill, and efficiency. and from sub-saharan africa to central and south america to the vast expanses of asia and the great cities of europe and all countries in between, cia officers were there, sometimes in force and sometimes virtually standing alone. and for those 25 years, it was a great honor for me to be a cia officer, as i knew that this country's contributions to sec
of american citizens, there's no other term, we can't assassinate foreign leaders because these are the same people that complained bitterly and eviscerated george w. bush. my conclusion, all of these democrats not only owe bush a policy, but politicized war. i'm not against drone strikes, but we've got to have a criteria. i'm not against enhanced interrogation and they're the ones inconsistent. your reaction. >> you're exactly right if the fifth amendment due process clause means anything, it ought to mean before the u.s. government can snuff out the life of an american citizen there ought to be some definable standard against which that citizen is judged and that citizen will be determined to be an imminent threat against the u.s. government. but this is a standardless determination as it's been laid out by this memorandum and leaked by the department of justice and it's very troubling, to add insult to injury to that, sean, we have a situation in which the department of justice won't give us full access to their full legal analysis. so we don't really know what the standard is, but what l
to take incomplete and contradictory information and advise the senior most policy makers about government about a foreign, political, and economic developments, or an operations officer, whose job it is to find and obtain those elusive secrets to provide advance warning and strategic surprise, impending violence, cyber attacks and a persistent threats such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons proliferation, or a technical expert, who finds nuggets of intelligence in tremendous volumes of data, provides secure data collection and systems and encountered the latest threats to our nation, or a support officer whose responsibility is to provide analysis and when directed by the president, conducting covert action and carried out with the provision speed, skill, and efficiency. and from sub-saharan africa to central and south america to the vast expanses of asia and the great cities of europe and all countries in between, cia officers were there, sometimes in force and sometimes virtually standing alone. and for those 25 years, it was a great honor for me to be a cia officer, as i knew
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)